Original Meaning

Saul and the Israelites Rout the Philistines (14:16–23)

THIS PARAGRAPH CONTINUES the contrast between Saul and Jonathan by illustrating how Jonathan is a leader who takes action, while Saul simply responds. When Saul sees what is happening, he calls for Ahijah to bring the ephod,9 apparently in order to ask Yahweh whether he should join the battle with the Philistines or not. But inexplicably, Saul suddenly stops the inquiry and rushes to the battlefield (14:19–20). Such sudden reversals expose Saul’s uncertainty and remind the reader of his previous failure to wait for Samuel’s arrival in order to offer sacrifice (ch. 13). This is but one decision of several others in this text that reveal Saul’s “fatal impetuosity,” and indeed this impetuosity begins to characterize his reign.10 The battle appears to have been nearly won before Saul even arrives on the scene (14:20).

Bridging Contexts

DEPENDENCE ON GOD AND HIS WORD. In applying this text to our modern world, we must read this section in light of the larger context of chapters 13–15. These three chapters are devoted to Saul’s reign and expose his inadequacies and his unsuitability to serve as Israel’s king. The narrator does this on two levels. (1) He explicitly articulates Saul’s rejection by Samuel in 13:13–14. Because Saul does not keep the command of Yahweh, his kingdom will not endure; that is, God will not establish Saul’s royal dynasty forever. Instead, the crown prince, Jonathan, will be replaced by another prince, who is of God’s own choosing. Such explicit rejection of Saul’s posterity removes all suspense and only leaves the question of how Saul’s own reign will conclude. It also drives the reader on to chapter 16 and the rest of the books of Samuel, which are devoted to Saul’s successor, whose royal dynasty will in fact be established forever.

(2) The other level of Saul’s rejection in the narrative is much more subtle than Samuel’s condemnation in chapter 13. There is a “destructive darkness” in Saul’s life that slowly but relentlessly wells up within the narrative itself.15 Events gradually begin to work against Saul. He is not necessarily a fated leader, but he makes foolish and careless decisions at each step, which eventually take on greater consequences as the narrative unfolds. In essence, the extended narrative forms an answer to one of the book’s leading questions: Who may serve suitably as Israel’s king? Saul now begins to function as a negative answer to that question and becomes the foil for another king, who will be the ideal.

We discussed the specific nature of Saul’s sin in our comments on chapter 13, and we will return to this question in chapter 15. But this chapter contributes to our understanding of his failures by contrasting Jonathan and Saul in many subtle ways. Jonathan is the bold and daring officer, who takes initiative and defends his fellow soldiers against his father’s unwise ban on eating. By contrast, Saul is disengaged. He has no communication with Jonathan (14:1, 17, 27), and his ban against eating implies he is also detached from his army. It is also interesting that the prophet Samuel has no role to play in this chapter.

Some scholars have attempted to analyze Saul’s personality traits, even to the extent of psychoanalyzing his behavior.16 Whatever difficulties Saul may have experienced, the text emphasizes a deeper and more troubling development, a decaying spiritual character. In this episode in chapter 14, the contrast between Jonathan and Saul is most acute in the way they express their relationship to Yahweh. “Whereas Saul the commander publicly dishonored the Lord through fear-inspired disobedience, Jonathan the warrior would bring honor to the Lord through his fearless faith.”17

Even beyond this military context, the text slowly drives the reader to the conclusion that Saul will never succeed as Israel’s king because of a persistent refusal to accept Yahweh’s word. Moreover, the absence of Samuel becomes important when we consider again the significance of the presence of Ahijah in verse 3. Samuel is gone, but this relative of Ichabod from Eli’s discredited house is present. This implies that Saul has stopped listening to Samuel altogether, which has apparently been matched by Samuel’s willingness to stop speaking (13:15). Saul is now looking to other sources for divine direction. God’s word and direction for him have become dissatisfying or threatening, so he has turned to another way.

This illustrates the biblical truth that God’s people are dependent on his Word for life and sustenance. But trouble comes when we choose to listen to other voices. It begins with Adam and Eve, who grew discontented with the simple prohibition, “You shall not eat,” and exchanged it for the convoluted logic of a stranger in the garden. It continues with the Israelite nation, who grew weary of the words of the prophets and exchanged them for the favorable oracles of false prophets, who assured them the nation’s history was secure (Jer. 27:16–22). It was true of the Lord’s disciples, who could not accept his teaching about his messianic mission and tried giving it a military interpretation (Matt. 16:21–23; 26:47–51).

Saul becomes another illustration of one of the truths of biblical salvation history: God’s people are not capable of self-rule. Whether the nation Israel as a whole or individual believers, God’s people have not been created for self-determination precisely because faith implies dependence on him, and any other source for guidance and direction will end in ruin. Those who love God are incapable of self-rule because by definition God’s people are created to look beyond themselves for a word—a watchword from God—that will set their course. By definition, God’s people are listening to his way, in the full conviction that no other will satisfy.

Contemporary Significance

THE SAMUEL IN OUR LIVES. Implications of this text for modern culture flow from this concept that Saul’s rejection occurs simultaneously with his own rejection of God’s means of instruction and support. Saul has failed to give heed to Samuel, his spiritual adviser and source of instruction from God. The prophet was Saul’s only legitimate means of learning what Yahweh wanted him to do and become. Once he stops listening to Samuel and the prophetic voice withdraws from Saul (as implied by 13:15), the “destructive darkness” of his life begins to become more apparent, and his course is set.

Most of us who live in the West accept as a rudimentary philosophical assumption the intrinsic freedom of the individual human. We generally assume also, however, that liberty and freedom are the same as the ability to “set our own course,” to navigate our own affairs as we see fit. But herein is the conflict between Christian faith and the philosophies of the West. Christians are not supposed to navigate their own course. We must recognize that we are incapable of finding within our own beings the measure by which we must rule our lives. Just as Saul needed Samuel to direct and guide him, so we need God to shine his light on our paths (Ps. 119:105). As Saul was condemned once he turned from Samuel to find guidance in other sources, so modern believers must be warned against neglecting or abandoning God as the source of truth and light.

My brother-in-law, Joe Boggs, is a private pilot, meaning he flies occasionally for pleasure and for family trips. On the few occasions when he has managed to get me into his small four-passenger Cessna, I have been impressed with how many instruments it takes to fly the plane. Joe has instruments for measuring his altitude, his fuel supply, his horizontal equilibrium, and his air speed. Not knowing much about such things, I’m always grateful to God for all the instruments at Joe’s disposal.

Joe explained to me one day that he has his “IFR” rating, which stands for “Instrument Flight Rules” (pilot-types love to sound military). This means that he can fly the plane without seeing the ground or horizon. If he is surrounded by thick clouds and can see nothing of the sky or ground, he can rely solely on the instruments of the plane to navigate. In order to qualify for his IFR rating, his instructor put a visor over his head blocking his view through the windshield. He had to prove he could fly in complete dependence on the instrument panel.

Christians need to have their IFR rating! Joe’s dependence and faith in his instruments and their ability to keep him from crashing illustrate how Christians should rely on God as the source of direction in our lives. We first must believe that God is trustworthy. He is just and holy and wants what is best for us. This was the serpent’s first lie in the Garden of Eden. He led Eve to believe that perhaps God was hiding something from her; perhaps God did not want what was best for her (Gen. 3:5). But just as Joe must believe his instruments are dependable and capable of keeping him from crashing, so Christians need to believe that God is worthy of our trust.

In addition, in order to fly the plane, Joe must physically commit himself. If his altitude is too high, Joe pulls back on the throttle to lower the plane. If his wings are not true to the horizon as indicated by the “artificial horizon” on his instrument panel, he adjusts the bank of the plane to the correct attitude. Thus, it is not enough simply to believe that God is trustworthy. We must act on that belief (James 2:19). Believers must commit themselves to God and his truth, and we must be willing to adjust quickly or change some sinful attitude or habit in our lives.

This text is compelling the reader to examine sources of authority in his or her life. It raises the question: Who is the Samuel in my life? Is God at liberty to communicate to me any message he needs me to hear in order to correct or admonish me? Or have I replaced Samuel with Ahijah? Have I turned from the dependable and true, which may be a harder word to hear? Have I turned instead to hear another word that is more pleasing or more attuned to my personal ambitions or desires? The Bible consistently shows the folly of turning to any other source.

Our guiding principles in life must be external to our own moral compass. All the instruments on Joe’s Cessna are tied to something tangible and external to the plane itself. The plane’s artificial horizon is tied to earth’s gravitational pull, the altitude is based on external air pressure, the compass on earth’s magnetic field, radio navigational instruments to radio signals, and so forth. Likewise, saving faith commits to a relationship with God, which establishes an objectifiable source of guidance external to the believer. Whether people look within to find the guiding principles of life or whether they look to the wisdom of other humans, anything short of divine counsel is self-destructive. Unfortunately, Saul’s reliance on Ahijah is only the beginning of his search for another way.

The following is a shopworn story, but one that bears repeating. On his way to work every day, a man walked past a clockmaker’s store. He would stop each day outside and synchronize his watch with the clock that stood in the window of the clockmaker’s shop. Observing this routine, the clockmaker one day struck up a conversation with the man and asked him what kind of work he did. The man timidly confessed that he worked as the timekeeper at the nearby factory and that his malfunctioning watch necessitated daily readjustment. Since it was his job to ring the closing bell every day at 4:00 P.M., he synchronized his watch with the clock every morning to guarantee precision.

The clockmaker, even more embarrassed than the timekeeper, said, “I hate to tell you this, but my clock doesn’t work very well either, and I have been adjusting it to the bell that I hear every afternoon from the factory at 4:00 P.M.!”18 Saul in our text illustrates what happens to an individual who turns from God to find another opinion, which is like relying on a malfunctioning watch that is timed every day to a bad clock.

Original Meaning

Jonathan Attacks the Outpost at Micmash (13:23–14:15)

THE UNIT OPENS with the account of Jonathan’s daring raid on the Philistine detachment at Micmash. Against all odds, he and his armor-bearer attack an outpost of Philistines. They are heavily outnumbered and at a strategic disadvantage. But Jonathan is unimpressed by the enemy’s greater numbers and undeterred in his belief that Yahweh will deliver Israel from this dreaded enemy. His words to the armor-bearer reveal his character and commitment: “Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few” (14:6).

In fact, the Lord honors Jonathan’s brave leadership. In this opening sortie, these two men alone kill around twenty Philistines in a small area (14:14). By implication the paragraph is showing what kind of king Jonathan would have been as his father’s successor.5 But alas, the text has already informed us that Jonathan will not be king because of Saul’s unfaithfulness (13:13–14).

While Jonathan and his armor-bearer are on their secret mission, Saul is in Gibeah administering his kingdom in traditional Israelite fashion (cf. Judg. 4:5).6 The passing reference to Ahijah in 1 Samuel 14:3 is important for our reading of this unit. The presence of a royal chaplain with the Israelite troops might not be noteworthy in and of itself. He is wearing the priestly ephod with its Urim and Thummim and can be consulted in order to seek Yahweh’s favor (Ex. 28). What is remarkable here is Ahijah’s carefully phrased genealogy: “He was a son of Ichabod’s brother Ahitub son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the LORD’s priest in Shiloh.” The narrator has detoured from direct descent in the line of Aaron in order to highlight meticulously an uncle, Ichabod, thus recalling the checkered history of Eli, Phinehas, and Shiloh. In an important study of this chapter, David Jobling succinctly captures the importance of this reference:

Saul is accompanied by Ahijah, a member of the rejected priestly house of Eli (14:3), and this first mention of an Elide after the disasters which befell Eli’s family in chap. 4 triggers the response “rejected by Yhwh.” Lest the point be missed, it is reinforced by the odd and needless genealogical reference to Ichabod, Ahijah’s uncle, picking up on 4:21–22, and reminding the reader that “the glory has departed.” His own royal glory gone, where else would we expect Saul to be than with a relative of “Glory gone”?7

The reference in verse 3 to the rejected priestly house thus stresses the rejection of Saul’s royal house.8 Moreover, it reveals something of the inner life of Saul, who has apparently lost the prophet Samuel as his spiritual advisor. Since Samuel announced the end of Saul’s royal dynasty in 13:13–14, the prophet has apparently been replaced by a member of the rejected family of Eli. Saul has lost his way. He has turned from the legitimate counsel of Samuel to the discredited priestly line of Eli.

Bridging Contexts

DEPENDENCE ON GOD AND HIS WORD. In applying this text to our modern world, we must read this section in light of the larger context of chapters 13–15. These three chapters are devoted to Saul’s reign and expose his inadequacies and his unsuitability to serve as Israel’s king. The narrator does this on two levels. (1) He explicitly articulates Saul’s rejection by Samuel in 13:13–14. Because Saul does not keep the command of Yahweh, his kingdom will not endure; that is, God will not establish Saul’s royal dynasty forever. Instead, the crown prince, Jonathan, will be replaced by another prince, who is of God’s own choosing. Such explicit rejection of Saul’s posterity removes all suspense and only leaves the question of how Saul’s own reign will conclude. It also drives the reader on to chapter 16 and the rest of the books of Samuel, which are devoted to Saul’s successor, whose royal dynasty will in fact be established forever.

(2) The other level of Saul’s rejection in the narrative is much more subtle than Samuel’s condemnation in chapter 13. There is a “destructive darkness” in Saul’s life that slowly but relentlessly wells up within the narrative itself.15 Events gradually begin to work against Saul. He is not necessarily a fated leader, but he makes foolish and careless decisions at each step, which eventually take on greater consequences as the narrative unfolds. In essence, the extended narrative forms an answer to one of the book’s leading questions: Who may serve suitably as Israel’s king? Saul now begins to function as a negative answer to that question and becomes the foil for another king, who will be the ideal.

We discussed the specific nature of Saul’s sin in our comments on chapter 13, and we will return to this question in chapter 15. But this chapter contributes to our understanding of his failures by contrasting Jonathan and Saul in many subtle ways. Jonathan is the bold and daring officer, who takes initiative and defends his fellow soldiers against his father’s unwise ban on eating. By contrast, Saul is disengaged. He has no communication with Jonathan (14:1, 17, 27), and his ban against eating implies he is also detached from his army. It is also interesting that the prophet Samuel has no role to play in this chapter.

Some scholars have attempted to analyze Saul’s personality traits, even to the extent of psychoanalyzing his behavior.16 Whatever difficulties Saul may have experienced, the text emphasizes a deeper and more troubling development, a decaying spiritual character. In this episode in chapter 14, the contrast between Jonathan and Saul is most acute in the way they express their relationship to Yahweh. “Whereas Saul the commander publicly dishonored the Lord through fear-inspired disobedience, Jonathan the warrior would bring honor to the Lord through his fearless faith.”17

Even beyond this military context, the text slowly drives the reader to the conclusion that Saul will never succeed as Israel’s king because of a persistent refusal to accept Yahweh’s word. Moreover, the absence of Samuel becomes important when we consider again the significance of the presence of Ahijah in verse 3. Samuel is gone, but this relative of Ichabod from Eli’s discredited house is present. This implies that Saul has stopped listening to Samuel altogether, which has apparently been matched by Samuel’s willingness to stop speaking (13:15). Saul is now looking to other sources for divine direction. God’s word and direction for him have become dissatisfying or threatening, so he has turned to another way.

This illustrates the biblical truth that God’s people are dependent on his Word for life and sustenance. But trouble comes when we choose to listen to other voices. It begins with Adam and Eve, who grew discontented with the simple prohibition, “You shall not eat,” and exchanged it for the convoluted logic of a stranger in the garden. It continues with the Israelite nation, who grew weary of the words of the prophets and exchanged them for the favorable oracles of false prophets, who assured them the nation’s history was secure (Jer. 27:16–22). It was true of the Lord’s disciples, who could not accept his teaching about his messianic mission and tried giving it a military interpretation (Matt. 16:21–23; 26:47–51).

Saul becomes another illustration of one of the truths of biblical salvation history: God’s people are not capable of self-rule. Whether the nation Israel as a whole or individual believers, God’s people have not been created for self-determination precisely because faith implies dependence on him, and any other source for guidance and direction will end in ruin. Those who love God are incapable of self-rule because by definition God’s people are created to look beyond themselves for a word—a watchword from God—that will set their course. By definition, God’s people are listening to his way, in the full conviction that no other will satisfy.

Contemporary Significance

THE SAMUEL IN OUR LIVES. Implications of this text for modern culture flow from this concept that Saul’s rejection occurs simultaneously with his own rejection of God’s means of instruction and support. Saul has failed to give heed to Samuel, his spiritual adviser and source of instruction from God. The prophet was Saul’s only legitimate means of learning what Yahweh wanted him to do and become. Once he stops listening to Samuel and the prophetic voice withdraws from Saul (as implied by 13:15), the “destructive darkness” of his life begins to become more apparent, and his course is set.

Most of us who live in the West accept as a rudimentary philosophical assumption the intrinsic freedom of the individual human. We generally assume also, however, that liberty and freedom are the same as the ability to “set our own course,” to navigate our own affairs as we see fit. But herein is the conflict between Christian faith and the philosophies of the West. Christians are not supposed to navigate their own course. We must recognize that we are incapable of finding within our own beings the measure by which we must rule our lives. Just as Saul needed Samuel to direct and guide him, so we need God to shine his light on our paths (Ps. 119:105). As Saul was condemned once he turned from Samuel to find guidance in other sources, so modern believers must be warned against neglecting or abandoning God as the source of truth and light.

My brother-in-law, Joe Boggs, is a private pilot, meaning he flies occasionally for pleasure and for family trips. On the few occasions when he has managed to get me into his small four-passenger Cessna, I have been impressed with how many instruments it takes to fly the plane. Joe has instruments for measuring his altitude, his fuel supply, his horizontal equilibrium, and his air speed. Not knowing much about such things, I’m always grateful to God for all the instruments at Joe’s disposal.

Joe explained to me one day that he has his “IFR” rating, which stands for “Instrument Flight Rules” (pilot-types love to sound military). This means that he can fly the plane without seeing the ground or horizon. If he is surrounded by thick clouds and can see nothing of the sky or ground, he can rely solely on the instruments of the plane to navigate. In order to qualify for his IFR rating, his instructor put a visor over his head blocking his view through the windshield. He had to prove he could fly in complete dependence on the instrument panel.

Christians need to have their IFR rating! Joe’s dependence and faith in his instruments and their ability to keep him from crashing illustrate how Christians should rely on God as the source of direction in our lives. We first must believe that God is trustworthy. He is just and holy and wants what is best for us. This was the serpent’s first lie in the Garden of Eden. He led Eve to believe that perhaps God was hiding something from her; perhaps God did not want what was best for her (Gen. 3:5). But just as Joe must believe his instruments are dependable and capable of keeping him from crashing, so Christians need to believe that God is worthy of our trust.

In addition, in order to fly the plane, Joe must physically commit himself. If his altitude is too high, Joe pulls back on the throttle to lower the plane. If his wings are not true to the horizon as indicated by the “artificial horizon” on his instrument panel, he adjusts the bank of the plane to the correct attitude. Thus, it is not enough simply to believe that God is trustworthy. We must act on that belief (James 2:19). Believers must commit themselves to God and his truth, and we must be willing to adjust quickly or change some sinful attitude or habit in our lives.

This text is compelling the reader to examine sources of authority in his or her life. It raises the question: Who is the Samuel in my life? Is God at liberty to communicate to me any message he needs me to hear in order to correct or admonish me? Or have I replaced Samuel with Ahijah? Have I turned from the dependable and true, which may be a harder word to hear? Have I turned instead to hear another word that is more pleasing or more attuned to my personal ambitions or desires? The Bible consistently shows the folly of turning to any other source.

Our guiding principles in life must be external to our own moral compass. All the instruments on Joe’s Cessna are tied to something tangible and external to the plane itself. The plane’s artificial horizon is tied to earth’s gravitational pull, the altitude is based on external air pressure, the compass on earth’s magnetic field, radio navigational instruments to radio signals, and so forth. Likewise, saving faith commits to a relationship with God, which establishes an objectifiable source of guidance external to the believer. Whether people look within to find the guiding principles of life or whether they look to the wisdom of other humans, anything short of divine counsel is self-destructive. Unfortunately, Saul’s reliance on Ahijah is only the beginning of his search for another way.

The following is a shopworn story, but one that bears repeating. On his way to work every day, a man walked past a clockmaker’s store. He would stop each day outside and synchronize his watch with the clock that stood in the window of the clockmaker’s shop. Observing this routine, the clockmaker one day struck up a conversation with the man and asked him what kind of work he did. The man timidly confessed that he worked as the timekeeper at the nearby factory and that his malfunctioning watch necessitated daily readjustment. Since it was his job to ring the closing bell every day at 4:00 P.M., he synchronized his watch with the clock every morning to guarantee precision.

The clockmaker, even more embarrassed than the timekeeper, said, “I hate to tell you this, but my clock doesn’t work very well either, and I have been adjusting it to the bell that I hear every afternoon from the factory at 4:00 P.M.!”18 Saul in our text illustrates what happens to an individual who turns from God to find another opinion, which is like relying on a malfunctioning watch that is timed every day to a bad clock.

Original Meaning

Saul’s Foolish Ban Against Eating (14:24–46)

SAUL’S IMPETUOUS, EVEN careless, actions continue. The meaning of verse 24 is complicated by textual and literary problems (compare NIV and NLT with NRSV).11 Whatever the original text may have been, apparently Saul places an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on his troops by disallowing them to eat food during the day of battle. He may have been motivated by a desire to create a “holy war” setting, which is reasonable in this context.12 But however commendable his reasons for such a ban, the result is that his men are famished and exhausted.

This paragraph’s unusual events illustrate again the contrast between Jonathan and Saul. Jonathan, unaware of his father’s foolish ban, does not hesitate to refresh himself with honey. His “brightened” condition (14:27, 29) proves that he has better understood God’s will for the troops than his father. He quickly condemns Saul’s ban and accuses him of making trouble for Israel (14:29). Later, when Saul seeks divine guidance concerning a surprise night attack, there is no response from Yahweh.13 This divine silence is tantamount to divine displeasure, and Saul begins an investigation to find the guilty party. When Jonathan proves to be the guilty party, Saul is faced with revolt in his own army.

Saul has gradually alienated himself first from Samuel, then from his army with the foolish ban against eating, and now finally from his own son (14:39). The result is a lost opportunity. The day that began with prospects of a final and decisive victory over the Philistines ends in a draw (14:46).

Bridging Contexts

DEPENDENCE ON GOD AND HIS WORD. In applying this text to our modern world, we must read this section in light of the larger context of chapters 13–15. These three chapters are devoted to Saul’s reign and expose his inadequacies and his unsuitability to serve as Israel’s king. The narrator does this on two levels. (1) He explicitly articulates Saul’s rejection by Samuel in 13:13–14. Because Saul does not keep the command of Yahweh, his kingdom will not endure; that is, God will not establish Saul’s royal dynasty forever. Instead, the crown prince, Jonathan, will be replaced by another prince, who is of God’s own choosing. Such explicit rejection of Saul’s posterity removes all suspense and only leaves the question of how Saul’s own reign will conclude. It also drives the reader on to chapter 16 and the rest of the books of Samuel, which are devoted to Saul’s successor, whose royal dynasty will in fact be established forever.

(2) The other level of Saul’s rejection in the narrative is much more subtle than Samuel’s condemnation in chapter 13. There is a “destructive darkness” in Saul’s life that slowly but relentlessly wells up within the narrative itself.15 Events gradually begin to work against Saul. He is not necessarily a fated leader, but he makes foolish and careless decisions at each step, which eventually take on greater consequences as the narrative unfolds. In essence, the extended narrative forms an answer to one of the book’s leading questions: Who may serve suitably as Israel’s king? Saul now begins to function as a negative answer to that question and becomes the foil for another king, who will be the ideal.

We discussed the specific nature of Saul’s sin in our comments on chapter 13, and we will return to this question in chapter 15. But this chapter contributes to our understanding of his failures by contrasting Jonathan and Saul in many subtle ways. Jonathan is the bold and daring officer, who takes initiative and defends his fellow soldiers against his father’s unwise ban on eating. By contrast, Saul is disengaged. He has no communication with Jonathan (14:1, 17, 27), and his ban against eating implies he is also detached from his army. It is also interesting that the prophet Samuel has no role to play in this chapter.

Some scholars have attempted to analyze Saul’s personality traits, even to the extent of psychoanalyzing his behavior.16 Whatever difficulties Saul may have experienced, the text emphasizes a deeper and more troubling development, a decaying spiritual character. In this episode in chapter 14, the contrast between Jonathan and Saul is most acute in the way they express their relationship to Yahweh. “Whereas Saul the commander publicly dishonored the Lord through fear-inspired disobedience, Jonathan the warrior would bring honor to the Lord through his fearless faith.”17

Even beyond this military context, the text slowly drives the reader to the conclusion that Saul will never succeed as Israel’s king because of a persistent refusal to accept Yahweh’s word. Moreover, the absence of Samuel becomes important when we consider again the significance of the presence of Ahijah in verse 3. Samuel is gone, but this relative of Ichabod from Eli’s discredited house is present. This implies that Saul has stopped listening to Samuel altogether, which has apparently been matched by Samuel’s willingness to stop speaking (13:15). Saul is now looking to other sources for divine direction. God’s word and direction for him have become dissatisfying or threatening, so he has turned to another way.

This illustrates the biblical truth that God’s people are dependent on his Word for life and sustenance. But trouble comes when we choose to listen to other voices. It begins with Adam and Eve, who grew discontented with the simple prohibition, “You shall not eat,” and exchanged it for the convoluted logic of a stranger in the garden. It continues with the Israelite nation, who grew weary of the words of the prophets and exchanged them for the favorable oracles of false prophets, who assured them the nation’s history was secure (Jer. 27:16–22). It was true of the Lord’s disciples, who could not accept his teaching about his messianic mission and tried giving it a military interpretation (Matt. 16:21–23; 26:47–51).

Saul becomes another illustration of one of the truths of biblical salvation history: God’s people are not capable of self-rule. Whether the nation Israel as a whole or individual believers, God’s people have not been created for self-determination precisely because faith implies dependence on him, and any other source for guidance and direction will end in ruin. Those who love God are incapable of self-rule because by definition God’s people are created to look beyond themselves for a word—a watchword from God—that will set their course. By definition, God’s people are listening to his way, in the full conviction that no other will satisfy.

Contemporary Significance

THE SAMUEL IN OUR LIVES. Implications of this text for modern culture flow from this concept that Saul’s rejection occurs simultaneously with his own rejection of God’s means of instruction and support. Saul has failed to give heed to Samuel, his spiritual adviser and source of instruction from God. The prophet was Saul’s only legitimate means of learning what Yahweh wanted him to do and become. Once he stops listening to Samuel and the prophetic voice withdraws from Saul (as implied by 13:15), the “destructive darkness” of his life begins to become more apparent, and his course is set.

Most of us who live in the West accept as a rudimentary philosophical assumption the intrinsic freedom of the individual human. We generally assume also, however, that liberty and freedom are the same as the ability to “set our own course,” to navigate our own affairs as we see fit. But herein is the conflict between Christian faith and the philosophies of the West. Christians are not supposed to navigate their own course. We must recognize that we are incapable of finding within our own beings the measure by which we must rule our lives. Just as Saul needed Samuel to direct and guide him, so we need God to shine his light on our paths (Ps. 119:105). As Saul was condemned once he turned from Samuel to find guidance in other sources, so modern believers must be warned against neglecting or abandoning God as the source of truth and light.

My brother-in-law, Joe Boggs, is a private pilot, meaning he flies occasionally for pleasure and for family trips. On the few occasions when he has managed to get me into his small four-passenger Cessna, I have been impressed with how many instruments it takes to fly the plane. Joe has instruments for measuring his altitude, his fuel supply, his horizontal equilibrium, and his air speed. Not knowing much about such things, I’m always grateful to God for all the instruments at Joe’s disposal.

Joe explained to me one day that he has his “IFR” rating, which stands for “Instrument Flight Rules” (pilot-types love to sound military). This means that he can fly the plane without seeing the ground or horizon. If he is surrounded by thick clouds and can see nothing of the sky or ground, he can rely solely on the instruments of the plane to navigate. In order to qualify for his IFR rating, his instructor put a visor over his head blocking his view through the windshield. He had to prove he could fly in complete dependence on the instrument panel.

Christians need to have their IFR rating! Joe’s dependence and faith in his instruments and their ability to keep him from crashing illustrate how Christians should rely on God as the source of direction in our lives. We first must believe that God is trustworthy. He is just and holy and wants what is best for us. This was the serpent’s first lie in the Garden of Eden. He led Eve to believe that perhaps God was hiding something from her; perhaps God did not want what was best for her (Gen. 3:5). But just as Joe must believe his instruments are dependable and capable of keeping him from crashing, so Christians need to believe that God is worthy of our trust.

In addition, in order to fly the plane, Joe must physically commit himself. If his altitude is too high, Joe pulls back on the throttle to lower the plane. If his wings are not true to the horizon as indicated by the “artificial horizon” on his instrument panel, he adjusts the bank of the plane to the correct attitude. Thus, it is not enough simply to believe that God is trustworthy. We must act on that belief (James 2:19). Believers must commit themselves to God and his truth, and we must be willing to adjust quickly or change some sinful attitude or habit in our lives.

This text is compelling the reader to examine sources of authority in his or her life. It raises the question: Who is the Samuel in my life? Is God at liberty to communicate to me any message he needs me to hear in order to correct or admonish me? Or have I replaced Samuel with Ahijah? Have I turned from the dependable and true, which may be a harder word to hear? Have I turned instead to hear another word that is more pleasing or more attuned to my personal ambitions or desires? The Bible consistently shows the folly of turning to any other source.

Our guiding principles in life must be external to our own moral compass. All the instruments on Joe’s Cessna are tied to something tangible and external to the plane itself. The plane’s artificial horizon is tied to earth’s gravitational pull, the altitude is based on external air pressure, the compass on earth’s magnetic field, radio navigational instruments to radio signals, and so forth. Likewise, saving faith commits to a relationship with God, which establishes an objectifiable source of guidance external to the believer. Whether people look within to find the guiding principles of life or whether they look to the wisdom of other humans, anything short of divine counsel is self-destructive. Unfortunately, Saul’s reliance on Ahijah is only the beginning of his search for another way.

The following is a shopworn story, but one that bears repeating. On his way to work every day, a man walked past a clockmaker’s store. He would stop each day outside and synchronize his watch with the clock that stood in the window of the clockmaker’s shop. Observing this routine, the clockmaker one day struck up a conversation with the man and asked him what kind of work he did. The man timidly confessed that he worked as the timekeeper at the nearby factory and that his malfunctioning watch necessitated daily readjustment. Since it was his job to ring the closing bell every day at 4:00 P.M., he synchronized his watch with the clock every morning to guarantee precision.

The clockmaker, even more embarrassed than the timekeeper, said, “I hate to tell you this, but my clock doesn’t work very well either, and I have been adjusting it to the bell that I hear every afternoon from the factory at 4:00 P.M.!”18 Saul in our text illustrates what happens to an individual who turns from God to find another opinion, which is like relying on a malfunctioning watch that is timed every day to a bad clock.

Original Meaning

Summary of Saul’s Reign (14:47–52)

THESE BRIEF NOTICES about Saul’s reign are typical of the Deuteronomistic Historian (see “The Israelite Historians” in the introduction), who also provides royal summaries for David (2 Sam. 8) and commonly in the books of 1-2 Kings. It has been suggested that Saul’s summary is more notable for what it does not say than for what it does say.14 Unlike David’s summary, for example, there is no mention of Yahweh. Twice, David is said to have been delivered wherever he went (2 Sam. 8:6, 14), whereas Saul is simply victorious wherever he turns (1 Sam. 14:47).

Especially important in light of Saul’s failure to inflict a decisive blow against the Philistines in chapters 13–14 is the concluding verse: “All the days of Saul there was bitter war with the Philistines, and whenever Saul saw a mighty or brave man, he took him into his service” (14:52). The Philistine threat was Saul’s reason for serving Israel as king (9:16). But the final subjugation of Philistia will have to await a greater king (2 Sam. 8:1, 12).

Bridging Contexts

DEPENDENCE ON GOD AND HIS WORD. In applying this text to our modern world, we must read this section in light of the larger context of chapters 13–15. These three chapters are devoted to Saul’s reign and expose his inadequacies and his unsuitability to serve as Israel’s king. The narrator does this on two levels. (1) He explicitly articulates Saul’s rejection by Samuel in 13:13–14. Because Saul does not keep the command of Yahweh, his kingdom will not endure; that is, God will not establish Saul’s royal dynasty forever. Instead, the crown prince, Jonathan, will be replaced by another prince, who is of God’s own choosing. Such explicit rejection of Saul’s posterity removes all suspense and only leaves the question of how Saul’s own reign will conclude. It also drives the reader on to chapter 16 and the rest of the books of Samuel, which are devoted to Saul’s successor, whose royal dynasty will in fact be established forever.

(2) The other level of Saul’s rejection in the narrative is much more subtle than Samuel’s condemnation in chapter 13. There is a “destructive darkness” in Saul’s life that slowly but relentlessly wells up within the narrative itself.15 Events gradually begin to work against Saul. He is not necessarily a fated leader, but he makes foolish and careless decisions at each step, which eventually take on greater consequences as the narrative unfolds. In essence, the extended narrative forms an answer to one of the book’s leading questions: Who may serve suitably as Israel’s king? Saul now begins to function as a negative answer to that question and becomes the foil for another king, who will be the ideal.

We discussed the specific nature of Saul’s sin in our comments on chapter 13, and we will return to this question in chapter 15. But this chapter contributes to our understanding of his failures by contrasting Jonathan and Saul in many subtle ways. Jonathan is the bold and daring officer, who takes initiative and defends his fellow soldiers against his father’s unwise ban on eating. By contrast, Saul is disengaged. He has no communication with Jonathan (14:1, 17, 27), and his ban against eating implies he is also detached from his army. It is also interesting that the prophet Samuel has no role to play in this chapter.

Some scholars have attempted to analyze Saul’s personality traits, even to the extent of psychoanalyzing his behavior.16 Whatever difficulties Saul may have experienced, the text emphasizes a deeper and more troubling development, a decaying spiritual character. In this episode in chapter 14, the contrast between Jonathan and Saul is most acute in the way they express their relationship to Yahweh. “Whereas Saul the commander publicly dishonored the Lord through fear-inspired disobedience, Jonathan the warrior would bring honor to the Lord through his fearless faith.”17

Even beyond this military context, the text slowly drives the reader to the conclusion that Saul will never succeed as Israel’s king because of a persistent refusal to accept Yahweh’s word. Moreover, the absence of Samuel becomes important when we consider again the significance of the presence of Ahijah in verse 3. Samuel is gone, but this relative of Ichabod from Eli’s discredited house is present. This implies that Saul has stopped listening to Samuel altogether, which has apparently been matched by Samuel’s willingness to stop speaking (13:15). Saul is now looking to other sources for divine direction. God’s word and direction for him have become dissatisfying or threatening, so he has turned to another way.

This illustrates the biblical truth that God’s people are dependent on his Word for life and sustenance. But trouble comes when we choose to listen to other voices. It begins with Adam and Eve, who grew discontented with the simple prohibition, “You shall not eat,” and exchanged it for the convoluted logic of a stranger in the garden. It continues with the Israelite nation, who grew weary of the words of the prophets and exchanged them for the favorable oracles of false prophets, who assured them the nation’s history was secure (Jer. 27:16–22). It was true of the Lord’s disciples, who could not accept his teaching about his messianic mission and tried giving it a military interpretation (Matt. 16:21–23; 26:47–51).

Saul becomes another illustration of one of the truths of biblical salvation history: God’s people are not capable of self-rule. Whether the nation Israel as a whole or individual believers, God’s people have not been created for self-determination precisely because faith implies dependence on him, and any other source for guidance and direction will end in ruin. Those who love God are incapable of self-rule because by definition God’s people are created to look beyond themselves for a word—a watchword from God—that will set their course. By definition, God’s people are listening to his way, in the full conviction that no other will satisfy.

Contemporary Significance

THE SAMUEL IN OUR LIVES. Implications of this text for modern culture flow from this concept that Saul’s rejection occurs simultaneously with his own rejection of God’s means of instruction and support. Saul has failed to give heed to Samuel, his spiritual adviser and source of instruction from God. The prophet was Saul’s only legitimate means of learning what Yahweh wanted him to do and become. Once he stops listening to Samuel and the prophetic voice withdraws from Saul (as implied by 13:15), the “destructive darkness” of his life begins to become more apparent, and his course is set.

Most of us who live in the West accept as a rudimentary philosophical assumption the intrinsic freedom of the individual human. We generally assume also, however, that liberty and freedom are the same as the ability to “set our own course,” to navigate our own affairs as we see fit. But herein is the conflict between Christian faith and the philosophies of the West. Christians are not supposed to navigate their own course. We must recognize that we are incapable of finding within our own beings the measure by which we must rule our lives. Just as Saul needed Samuel to direct and guide him, so we need God to shine his light on our paths (Ps. 119:105). As Saul was condemned once he turned from Samuel to find guidance in other sources, so modern believers must be warned against neglecting or abandoning God as the source of truth and light.

My brother-in-law, Joe Boggs, is a private pilot, meaning he flies occasionally for pleasure and for family trips. On the few occasions when he has managed to get me into his small four-passenger Cessna, I have been impressed with how many instruments it takes to fly the plane. Joe has instruments for measuring his altitude, his fuel supply, his horizontal equilibrium, and his air speed. Not knowing much about such things, I’m always grateful to God for all the instruments at Joe’s disposal.

Joe explained to me one day that he has his “IFR” rating, which stands for “Instrument Flight Rules” (pilot-types love to sound military). This means that he can fly the plane without seeing the ground or horizon. If he is surrounded by thick clouds and can see nothing of the sky or ground, he can rely solely on the instruments of the plane to navigate. In order to qualify for his IFR rating, his instructor put a visor over his head blocking his view through the windshield. He had to prove he could fly in complete dependence on the instrument panel.

Christians need to have their IFR rating! Joe’s dependence and faith in his instruments and their ability to keep him from crashing illustrate how Christians should rely on God as the source of direction in our lives. We first must believe that God is trustworthy. He is just and holy and wants what is best for us. This was the serpent’s first lie in the Garden of Eden. He led Eve to believe that perhaps God was hiding something from her; perhaps God did not want what was best for her (Gen. 3:5). But just as Joe must believe his instruments are dependable and capable of keeping him from crashing, so Christians need to believe that God is worthy of our trust.

In addition, in order to fly the plane, Joe must physically commit himself. If his altitude is too high, Joe pulls back on the throttle to lower the plane. If his wings are not true to the horizon as indicated by the “artificial horizon” on his instrument panel, he adjusts the bank of the plane to the correct attitude. Thus, it is not enough simply to believe that God is trustworthy. We must act on that belief (James 2:19). Believers must commit themselves to God and his truth, and we must be willing to adjust quickly or change some sinful attitude or habit in our lives.

This text is compelling the reader to examine sources of authority in his or her life. It raises the question: Who is the Samuel in my life? Is God at liberty to communicate to me any message he needs me to hear in order to correct or admonish me? Or have I replaced Samuel with Ahijah? Have I turned from the dependable and true, which may be a harder word to hear? Have I turned instead to hear another word that is more pleasing or more attuned to my personal ambitions or desires? The Bible consistently shows the folly of turning to any other source.

Our guiding principles in life must be external to our own moral compass. All the instruments on Joe’s Cessna are tied to something tangible and external to the plane itself. The plane’s artificial horizon is tied to earth’s gravitational pull, the altitude is based on external air pressure, the compass on earth’s magnetic field, radio navigational instruments to radio signals, and so forth. Likewise, saving faith commits to a relationship with God, which establishes an objectifiable source of guidance external to the believer. Whether people look within to find the guiding principles of life or whether they look to the wisdom of other humans, anything short of divine counsel is self-destructive. Unfortunately, Saul’s reliance on Ahijah is only the beginning of his search for another way.

The following is a shopworn story, but one that bears repeating. On his way to work every day, a man walked past a clockmaker’s store. He would stop each day outside and synchronize his watch with the clock that stood in the window of the clockmaker’s shop. Observing this routine, the clockmaker one day struck up a conversation with the man and asked him what kind of work he did. The man timidly confessed that he worked as the timekeeper at the nearby factory and that his malfunctioning watch necessitated daily readjustment. Since it was his job to ring the closing bell every day at 4:00 P.M., he synchronized his watch with the clock every morning to guarantee precision.

The clockmaker, even more embarrassed than the timekeeper, said, “I hate to tell you this, but my clock doesn’t work very well either, and I have been adjusting it to the bell that I hear every afternoon from the factory at 4:00 P.M.!”18 Saul in our text illustrates what happens to an individual who turns from God to find another opinion, which is like relying on a malfunctioning watch that is timed every day to a bad clock.